(15-11-2015 01:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: You shoot game with a handgun? Don't you gotta be real close to do that? Like look 'em in the eye close?

I hunt rats with a single shot .177 Beeman and a night scope. Fuckers are smarter than me.

I've never missed a daytime shot at a rat with my .177 air gun.

I'm 1 for 1.

Daytime rat was already dying if you saw it. Nocturnal rats know when there's a scope on them and know how to dodge just before I pull the trigger. ManlyGirl uses dogs to control the rats. They are far more efficient.

(15-11-2015 02:00 PM)Chas Wrote: I've never missed a daytime shot at a rat with my .177 air gun.

I'm 1 for 1.

Daytime rat was already dying if you saw it. Nocturnal rats know when there's a scope on them and know how to dodge just before I pull the trigger. ManlyGirl uses dogs to control the rats. They are far more efficient.

Nah, it wasn't the first - they were bold.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-11-2015 04:24 PM)Nishi Karano Kaze Wrote: Would a well armed population actually do any real difference when we speak of terror?
As i see it. Terrorist aren't trying to play on a level playing field. So if there is plenty of guns around. They'll use bombs and worse they'd look into getting their hands on another plane.

Exactly. One could (and probably would have) make the same argument after 9/11 in the US.

"9/11 happened, so the gun laws in the US are too restrictive!!! If more people had guns, maybe they could have stopped those 9/11 hijackers (who probably would have had guns) in a nice close quarters shootout on those planes."

When it comes to terrorism, there is no linkage (logically) with a country's gun laws (or probably any of its other laws either). Terrorists aren't doing these things logically, they are (especially in the case of ISIS) doing it because they have an extremist view for how others should treat them. That and they believe that they can induce the apocalypse by inducing another war in the middle east.

(14-11-2015 04:24 PM)Nishi Karano Kaze Wrote: Would a well armed population actually do any real difference when we speak of terror?
As i see it. Terrorist aren't trying to play on a level playing field. So if there is plenty of guns around. They'll use bombs and worse they'd look into getting their hands on another plane.

Exactly. One could (and probably would have) make the same argument after 9/11 in the US.

"9/11 happened, so the gun laws in the US are too restrictive!!! If more people had guns, maybe they could have stopped those 9/11 hijackers (who probably would have had guns) in a nice close quarters shootout on those planes."

When it comes to terrorism, there is no linkage (logically) with a country's gun laws (or probably any of its other laws either). Terrorists aren't doing these things logically, they are (especially in the case of ISIS) doing it because they have an extremist view for how others should treat them. That and they believe that they can induce the apocalypse by inducing another war in the middle east.

Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?

If terrorists strike in the U.S. in the same manner as they did in France, with AK47's or other firearms, they won't be attacking military bases or police stations. They won't be running into gun stores. They'll pick the same soft targets mass shooters do. Theaters, schools, malls and other "gun free zones" most likely in liberal states or cities with stricter gun controls and less people with concealed carry licences.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet

Its like the crime rate in Maricopa County Az. Joe Arpaio's tent jail doesn't really cause criminals to not commit crimes. But it does make them go to other counties where the jail isn't such a hellhole. So thanks all you liberal states for making our heavily armed states a nicer place.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.

(16-11-2015 07:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Exactly. One could (and probably would have) make the same argument after 9/11 in the US.

"9/11 happened, so the gun laws in the US are too restrictive!!! If more people had guns, maybe they could have stopped those 9/11 hijackers (who probably would have had guns) in a nice close quarters shootout on those planes."

When it comes to terrorism, there is no linkage (logically) with a country's gun laws (or probably any of its other laws either). Terrorists aren't doing these things logically, they are (especially in the case of ISIS) doing it because they have an extremist view for how others should treat them. That and they believe that they can induce the apocalypse by inducing another war in the middle east.

Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?

If terrorists strike in the U.S. in the same manner as they did in France, with AK47's or other firearms, they won't be attacking military bases or police stations. They won't be running into gun stores. They'll pick the same soft targets mass shooters do. Theaters, schools, malls and other "gun free zones" most likely in liberal states or cities with stricter gun controls and less people with concealed carry licences.

"Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?"

I didn't realize that they always do pick those places.

But in any event, as was mentioned by others, an ambush attack negates the effectiveness of any offensive-oriented weapon.

"If terrorists strike in the U.S. in the same manner as they did in France, with AK47's or other firearms, they won't be attacking military bases or police stations. They won't be running into gun stores. They'll pick the same soft targets mass shooters do. Theaters, schools, malls and other "gun free zones" most likely in liberal states or cities with stricter gun controls and less people with concealed carry licences."

More guns is not the fucking solution. Less fear and less xenophobia, both on the part of the west and the east. We have enough governments friend and foe alike who have military and nukes. We don't need to be handing out death products to every civilian like they are candy.

You can make the "good guy with a gun" stupid fucking argument all you want. But the fact remains the more we make the more opportunity for the bad guys to get them too. Even with civilians legally owning them, you combine that with bigotry and fear, you set up mob rule and someone innocent will get hurt.

(16-11-2015 08:10 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote: Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?

If terrorists strike in the U.S. in the same manner as they did in France, with AK47's or other firearms, they won't be attacking military bases or police stations. They won't be running into gun stores. They'll pick the same soft targets mass shooters do. Theaters, schools, malls and other "gun free zones" most likely in liberal states or cities with stricter gun controls and less people with concealed carry licences.

"Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?"

I didn't realize that they always do pick those places.

But in any event, as was mentioned by others, an ambush attack negates the effectiveness of any offensive-oriented weapon.

Only in an attack on a small number of people, especially by a lone shooter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(16-11-2015 09:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "Why do mass shooters pick locations where victims are more likely to be unarmed? Same with these terrorists. You think they will try this crap at the annual NRA convention?"

I didn't realize that they always do pick those places.

But in any event, as was mentioned by others, an ambush attack negates the effectiveness of any offensive-oriented weapon.

Only in an attack on a small number of people, especially by a lone shooter.

You just described most mass shootings by domestic terrorists and/or mentally unstable people. I don't know what added information this provides.